Datasets:

KushT

/

imdb_sentiment_train_val_test

like 0

When I was 11, Grease 2 was like crack. It was a classless, shameful, euphoric, and powerfully addictive experience. My sister and I would watch it, rewind it, and watch it over again and again and again until we passed out or became too confused and hostile to stand one another. So, if you are an 11-year old girl, and you reviewed this film as "brilliant" or "fun" or "better than the original Grease," you have your fledgling adolescent hormones to blame and you can rest assured that this unyielding fixation with utter rubbish will pass.<br /><br />If, however, you are not a little girl, you have absolutely no excuse to suggest that Grease 2 was anything but an inane, artless, slipshod embarrassment for all who participated in its production, distribution, and/or consumption.<br /><br />For the sake of criticism, I will dignify the film now by explaining why it blows… <br /><br />1. In a well-executed musical, the songs should advance the narrative or develop the characters. In Grease 2, with a few debatable exceptions, to the music is obscenely pointless. Most of the songs appear to relate gimped innuendo about sex in an excessive and general way ("Score Tonight," "Reproduction," "Do It For Our Country," and "Prowlin'") without making one concrete statement about any of the film's characters or themes. Plus, all of the music is uncomfortably stupid and no one in the cast demonstrates even the crudest semblance of an ability to sing or dance.<br /><br />2. The T-birds should be badass, and if not at least somewhat likable, but instead each of them is an annoying wussy-dufus-loser. In the end, when Johnny Nogerelli offers Michael the sacred T-bird jacket and initiates him into the gang, Michael should kick it to the ground, spit on it, and duck away to fervently scrub any part of his body that was touched by it. But of course, he accepts it as if it is gold because despite the fact that they are a bunch of bumbling meatheads, there is no greater honor than to be one with the T-birds. <br /><br />3. Since Michael is beautiful, smart, kind, resourceful, and above average in everyway (his musical impotence notwithstanding), it is feasible that Stephanie would ultimately embrace him when he reveals himself to be the man behind the mask. Stephanie, on the other hand, is a slovenly, slack-jawed, bubble gum smacking, dirty sweatshirt wearing, gracelessly rude and trashy dingbat. So aside from being pretty (I guess), she harbors no likable characteristics, thus, audiences are given no justification whatsoever for the depth of Michael's attraction to her.<br /><br />I could go on and on, but I didn't want to mention the gross inferiority to its predecessor since there are apparently so many cranks out there who seem to feel that such a comparison is unfair. I will say this though, to those of you who think you want to revisit this mess for old time's sake: Grease 2 is an experience akin to re-living your first kiss. Only you are 32 now and kissing a snot-nosed 13-year old kid with acne and slobby braces. The magic is gone and you are left feeling dirty and disturbed. Trust me.

This is the only full length feature film about the world of bridge. I found the first 10 minutes a bit slow, but after that, the movie is absolutely perfect in describing professional bridge players and how they go about earning a living. <br /><br />Some of the scenes are very funny. I don't think that a non-bridge player would get the charm of this movie. <br /><br />Some of the dresses are really beautiful, pity the movie is in black and white - I can only imagine what they would look like in colour. The way the media are portrayed is absolutely hilarious. There is no way on earth bridge will ever be like that. <br /><br />Watch it as soon as you can, and tell your friends about it.

***Possible spoilers***<br /><br />I recently watched this movie with my 11 year old son and was pleased to see that he laughed in the right places and was thrilled by the action sequences. Ron Ely is just right as Doc. Cool, calm, almost always in control(and with an occasional twinkle in his eye). What more can one ask for? I have never read a Doc Savage book, so I don't know if it is faithful to the source but I enjoyed the light tone and derring-do. Many people have compared this movie to Raiders of the Lost Ark, which I don't think is fair. The difference in budget is astounding(Raiders must have at least 10 times the budget). Doc Savage does not have the extensive location work that Raiders has. Special effects are also at a minimum but come on people, the story is a lot of fun and the humor is just right. The Sousa music is catchy(love that theme song- Every time I watch the film, I end up humming the theme for days).The best way to approach this film is to just RELAX and enjoy. Highlights include the exciting opening sequence where the fabulous five and Doc chase the Indian sniper throughout the rooftops of New York and the VERY funny fight sequence between Doc and Captain Seas. Not as good is the villain who sleeps in a giant crib (really!). Overall a great movie to watch on a rainy day. I give it 7 out of 10.<br /><br />Doc Savage, Doc Savage...thank the lord he's here!

Cassavetes was clearly an intelligent, sensitive man with bold new ideas about making films. He wanted to be an auteur, to break away from the confines of the system and bring a new realism to the American cinema. For that, I applaud him.<br /><br />Unfortunately, as a member of his audience, I cannot applaud A Woman Under the Influence. Cassavetes took what could have been a fascinating topic (an insane woman) and somehow managed to craft a dull film, filled with lengthy, ad-libbed ranting and drawn-out scenes. He seems to have had a gift for capturing the dullest moments of a person's life on film, and it often appears as though he simply turned the camera on his family and let the motor run and run. This tactic would be acceptable if Cassavetes had captured something devastatingly REAL -- or even a kernel of something so real it touched the heart in ways a conventional film could not. Yet I found the performances, particularly Rowlands', to be artificial. I never believed for a moment that she was really insane. I have met people who are truly mentally disturbed, yet I've never seen any of them act quite like Gena Rowlands in A Woman Under the Influence. She played it like a very obnoxious, uninhibited woman who drinks a lot, and even that was confusing because we only see her drink once (at the beginning), but she acts drunk for the remainder of the film. There are some moments in which she taps into something real, but those moments are few and far between; she fails to sustain a seamless mentally disturbed character. Again, I applaud her efforts, but effort alone is not enough to make the performance ring true.<br /><br />Novice audiences who happen upon this film and see its high IMDb rating will no doubt feel compelled to love it and rate it highly, just to prove that they 'get it.' But don't be brainwashed by the hype -- judge for yourself. You don't have to pretend to like it.<br /><br />Like Woody Allen, John Cassavetes could be accused of solipsism in his film-making, seeming to find his own psyche and his own life experiences so endlessly fascinating that he couldn't imagine that to others they appeared presumptive and tortuously self-indulgent. But Woody Allen at least has demonstrated a gift for keeping an audience entertained -- he knows that a compelling story structure and a good dose of humor are essential to any movie. If Cassavetes had employed some self-discipline (and a sharp pair of editing shears!), A Woman Under the Influence could have stood a chance. But what's the point of making a 'realistic' film if the only people who can stand to sit through it are the art-house devotees and film students who worship Cassavetes as some sort of anti-establishment deity? Without dumbing anything down, I believe Cassavetes could have made A Woman slightly more accessible by keeping the pace moving with an actual plot, instead of presenting a string of 30 minute-long scenes of ad-libbed arguments. If you just make films for yourself and a few of your fans, you're just reaching the already converted. Watch this movie with your own set of eyes and make your own decisions about it. If you are truly moved and fascinated by it, good for you.

I work with children from 0 – 6 years old and they all love the Doodlebops. The Doodlebops are energetic, vibrant and appealing. Once they start singing, ''We're the Doodlebops We're the Doodlebops We're the Doodlebops Oh yeah Come and join the fun because we're laughing and we're singing all day" it is almost impossible not to join them in song. The Doodlebops brings the viewer into a world of color and fun. Each show is an adventure, the Doodlebops do not try to change the world with preachy messages all they do is have fun while sorting out everyday life challenges that the young child may relate to. The Doodlebops is an refreshing, high action alternative to regular children's television programs.

There is a reason why Jay Leno himself will not acknowledge this film. It consistently ranks as one of the worst films of all time. The acting is horrible, the script lacks direction and the director himself doesn't seem sure on which way to take this film. "A buddy film," "an action/comedy," "mystery." Seems half way through, he gives up, and is just along for the ride. Jay Leno and Pat Morita are talented and dedicated performers. It is a shame that they wasted their time and gifts making this mess of a movie. Jay Leno and Pat Morita prior to involving themselves with this, had spent years pounding out their crafts on the Hollywood circuit. Mr. Morita had already been a star in his own right, acting steadily since the mid 1960s as the star of such cult TV and movie classics as "Happy Days," and the dismal but affable "Mr. T and Tina." And won the hearts of America with his roles in the powerful film, "Midway," "The Karate Kid," and a host of others. Mr. Leno can been seen on TV shows dating back to the mid 70s. And was a top performer in the comedy clubs of America. He can be seen in countless TV spots and in major films. It is a shame, that they agreed to be seen with this nonsense.

*Can anybody tell me WHERE is the COMEDY ??!! <br /><br />*(Charlie Sheen) is a very weak comedian, (Thomas Haden Church) is looking so feeble (with him !), and the whole thing is so thickheaded ! <br /><br />*They tried to make a live comic book which turned out to be super bloody comic nightmare and it wasn't even funny? Like the plan's scene in the bathroom; it was so good with its cinematic imagination but there is nothing more.. except PAIN ! <br /><br />*Donald Sutherland ??! His relationship with his daughter ??!<br /><br />*This is actually a kind of work which they made it just to made it and earn some money from it , but it became such a crime when THIS money would be robbed from the very us whom got deceived by so low art work and an entertainment had absolutely no entertainment AT ALL !<br /><br />*Well, it would've been uglier if it was big production and starring Brando in his golden years with a REAL star.<br /><br />*The Sheen's family in here. Just be aware of that !<br /><br />*Anyone who found themselves admiring this movie or -God Forbid- loving it ! Then you must go directly to therapy before you become more dangerous and hurt anybody else !<br /><br />*(Brando) undoubtedly is a genius but the movie isn't ! And he wasn't intending to be one in here after reading this for sure !! But the main big problem is that no one else ever worked in this thing trying, or wanting, to be a small time smart or even good !!! (Sorry I'm crying now ! The movie's torturing is unbelievable !). <br /><br />*There is a scene where (Brando) hitting (Mira Sorvino) by her shoes ! That was so realistic !? Maybe he was seeing himself in her so he was punishing himself for being in such a crap ! <br /><br />*For the milliard time : This one could've been better (or less worse !). The script, till the train's heist, was nice and I just imagined that they'd escape to have some chase like it's another (Smokey and the Bandit) but with (Brando) as the sheriff. In fact any of those chimeras was much merciful than what I've watched !<br /><br />*Why this masterpiece didn't receive any Razzie award ?! You want to make me believe that there was lower movie than THIS ? I do not think so ! It's a situation where the Razzie's supervisor must himself win one for his negligence !!<br /><br />*Martin Sheen is here also as a guest star maybe for supporting his failure son but ironically the father was as failure as his son ! and why is that ?! Well ! Because I hate Martin Sheen maybe more than I hate comic movies weren't as good as its ambition ! <br /><br />*It's not a comedy movie, NO.. It's a horror one !, and I just hate horror movies especially those which have been propagandized as comic ones ! <br /><br />*Name good thing about it? Hmmm ! Well, this one compared to another Marlon Brando's monster movie (The Island of Dr. Moreau - 1996) would be close to (Casablanca) !! <br /><br />P.S : if you still want to know what are or who are precisely the bad, the ugly and the very ugly in this movie.. Just pray your last prayers and go watch it.. May God Help You !

This isn't a movie. It is a collection of unrelated, ill-conceived and poorly assembled scenes that look like the unedited results of a dim 10 year old with a mini-DV camera. In fact, I have a theory that the extremely abrasive girl in the train corridor - the one with the greasy hair, dead-pan stare, ipod and nervous tic - probably shot it herself in a creative phase.<br /><br />If you made it further than the ten minutes I did, don't bother trying to fit what you saw into the context of the European Artiste mentality praised above. This is a true and complete waste of time, money and film that would have made William One-Shot Beaudine cringe.<br /><br />The unfortunate part is that the endless series of vacuum-packed characters is representative of what now passes for much of humanity.<br /><br />What's next? Six directors shooting social intercourse at the Wal-Mart snack counter?

One of the finest musicals made, one that is timeless and is worth seeing time and again. Delicious! The acting, especially by Ron Moody as Fagin, is superb. Costumes are exquisite....even the shabby ones.<br /><br />The two young lads who play Oliver and The Artful Dodger are wonderfully talented. Oliver Reed does a great job portraying Bill Sykes to where you can't help but hope he comes to a terrible end....which he does. <br /><br />The dancing is cleverly choreographed and is mesmerizing. Oliver can hold its own with the likes of My Fair Lady, The Sound of Music, Oklahoma, etc. A film for the entire family.

<br /><br />It's a generic coming-of-age story -- think "The Member of the Wedding," "Summer of '42," "A Summer Place," even "Little Women" -- and there are moments where Mulligan might have omitted the soupy music, not used slow-motion, or played down the golden-lit prettiness of the setting. Otherwise, it's done with rare emotional perfect-pitch. Nothing's forced, every line has feeling, and the pacing is just right. Even the below-A-list casting helps: Bigger movie stars with more recognizable personalities might have overwhelmed the material. In particular, Witherspoon is excellent: Her line readings are fresh and original, and her body language is just right for a gawky, hoydenish 14-year-old on the eve of womanhood. Waterston is also very fine, even if he has to spend much of the movie climbing in and out of the family truck.<br /><br />One senses that the film's makers were aware of its unpromising commercial prospects -- no big stars, no big car crashes, no special effects -- and consciously decided to make the best possible movie, box office be damned. It's intimate and honest, and it sticks to the ribs. If you find yourself misting up at the end, you don't have to feel you've been duped.

I saw this movie a few years back on the BBC i sat thru it. How? i don't know,this is way up there in the "so bad it'Good " charts Kidman ,Baldwin,and Pullman must cringe when they see it now.I think Woody Allen would have worked wonders with the outlandish plot, and Baldwin's part could have been played with gusto by Leslie Nelson.it was on again tonight i tried to watch it again but life's too short. the few minutes i watched was for the lovely Nicole she was so hot around 93, has Baldwin ever made a good movie? Pullman played his stock in trade "nice but dim" character the F-word coming out of his mouth when the lady from "frasier" miscast ed as a detective accuses him of murder sounds so wrong. stay well away.

All the ingredients of low-brow b-movie cult cinema. Topless (and bottomless) girls, kung-fu kicking chefs, slave traders, evil Germans with mustaches, Cameron Mitchell and sword-wielding zombies.<br /><br />And, of course the breasts of Camille Keaton, who's best known display occurs in the feminist exploitation classic I Spit on Your Grave. We also must mention the hooters of jewel Shepard, who play a hooker in the recent film The Cooler.<br /><br />Lots of blood and action with knives and swords and martial arts among topless dancers in a bar, in a whorehouse, and on a boat load of martial artists heading to some zombie island where bad martial artists go to die or something like that.<br /><br />Tops and bottoms come off easily and frequently as travelers are well lubricated thanks to the boat owner.<br /><br />Then disaster strikes as their boat is destroyed and they land on the zombie island where mas monks sacrifice young girls to the dead martial artists to bring them back to life.<br /><br />Just when you thought it had everything, there are piranhas in the water. Yum Yum A big fat German for dinner.<br /><br />Just the thing for your next zombie fest.

As a long-time fan of Superman from the comics, through the 1950s series, the first two of the Chris Reeves films and Lois & Clark, and finally Smallville, I was *really* hoping for something clever with "Superman Returns".<br /><br />Instead we got Lex Luthor making *another* attempt at real-estate conversion, another Superman-beaten-up-while-wearing-kryptonite sequence, and internal inconsistencies: he couldn't stop himself falling into the ocean when stuck with 6" of kryptonite, but when Lois breaks off 3" of it, *leaving the rest embedded in him*, he can lift *a continent* into space?? Really, the only hero in the story was Lois' partner - I can't remember his name off-hand. He did all kinds of life-saving, heroic things with nothing but guts and skill - no superpowers, no invulnerability...just a normal human.<br /><br />They keep making Superman so small. Why can't we have Superman battling Brainiac or fighting to save the universe from General Zod instead of Lex's petty schemes. Oh, I forgot...they're doing that in Smallville.<br /><br />Yeah...I think I'll stick to Smallville...<br /><br />You probably should, too...

I suppose it was for Temple Matthews who written basically a remake even though there are few changes which just make it worse. SPOILERS: It is much similar to the original. Melody, Ariel's new daughter is threatened by Ursula's sister, Morgana. Morgana escapes, but keeps her promise to take Melody away from them. Did Ursula have a sister?! And she is not that great a villain as Ursula was. This is where there is similarity. Medoly is kept from the sea until Morgana is captured, but she doesn't know a thing about it, because it all happened when she was a baby. A wall surrounds the palace to keep her in and morgana out. She goes under the wall day to day to have a swim and talk with Sebastian, who is not as funny or fun as in the original. She finds a seashell with her name on it and runs away from home and to look for answers and finds Morgana. Here is a similarity; Morgana tricks Melody, making her happy by turning here into a mermaid. Meanwhile, Eric, Melody and King Triton look for her. To stay a mermaid she needs to steal the trident from Triton. So Melody does, because she does not know King Triton is her father. She makes friends with a penguin and a walrus and here is where it is awful. The penguins who live with them in an icy ocean, hate them because they are cowards. So they try to prove they are heroes and fail. That does not suit the little mermaid. And the dialogue during those conversations between the penguins and those two characters is ear-bleeding. you know why? Because the first had a great story. This one is not and is not magical. It is just an example of how bad many sequels are.<br /><br />Melody finds them and they help to take her to Atlantica to prove themselves. When they take the trident, Ariel finds Melody with Morgana. Melody is angry at her mother for keeping her from the sea so she gives the trident to Morgana, then she shows her true colours once she grabs it. Poor Ariel and Melody are in her custody. The penguin and the walrus begin to prove themselves when they fight Morgana's shark friend. Sorry I did not mention him earlier. They finally prove themselves. Eric, King Triton and his soldiers arrive but are forced to bow down before Morgana by the power of the trident. Melody takes it, throws it to Triton and he ices Morgana (literally). Then Ariel apologises to Melody and thinks it is all her fault. It was not! Ariel did the right thing to protect Melody, but they never say so. Triton offers Melody to live in sea or land. She in fact has a "better idea". She uses the trident to vaporize the wall so humans and mer-folk can be together. Then everyone sings an awful song. THE END.<br /><br />Whoever has seen it and likes this obviously has not seen the original. I do not dislike this because I am a teenager. I liked it when I was very very little. Then as I grew older I began to see what is bad about this film. young, young kids will enjoy it, but it is likely that when they are in primary school, they will forget about it. Normally I would think I over-judged a film and it was better than I remember when I watched it again, but not this one. It is even worse. Story is no exception. If you thought, by reading this that the story is good, read more of this comment and you will know the other bad points: Well, you know the story now. I am sorry for spoiling it for you, but I had to point out some bad parts of it. One of the worst things is the animation. Colour is awful. The original had beautiful colour. Watching this almost made me want to go blind. Even the illustrations and landscape design were not good. The original had beautiful, magical colouring and beautiful underwater landscape design and for land as well, making it a joy to watch.<br /><br />The music is unbearable. Compared to the first, the music here is crap. Songs are not that well composed and Tara Strong (I think that is her name) who did Melody can not sing. She at times either sang too high or did not keep track for the melody in the song. So much for having "Melody" as a name.And the music is not at all beautiful or moving. Little Mermaid 1 won an Oscar for it and it truly deserved it. This one deserved a razzie award for worst musical score in a sequel if it would exist.<br /><br />I did not like the voices. Several people who played characters from the first, did the same ones in this. Jodi Benson is a great singer, but now that she is older, no offence to her, her voice is too deep and not so beautiful anymore. And I am really disappointed in her and others who were in the first for being a part of this. If I was chosen for this film, just by reading the script, I can tell it would be a bad film. The characters are different now. Ariel is more wiser now, but annoying. They overdid her character, making her too mature. In sequels you are not meant to change the characters unless it is for a special reason. She was sixteen in the first. There is little chance she changes. That is the stage when you become the person you are going to be for the rest of your life. Screenwriters should think of that. They should think of the character.<br /><br />Well, I suppose that is it for me. I hope you find my comment useful, because I am sure a lot of you will agree with my point of view.

This is one of those westerns that, well, stands practically alone in the unrelieved quality of its dialog. Very few can hold up to it over the long haul. That said, the rest is pretty bad. Nevertheless I am giving it an eight because there is no other western with such consistently good dialog with maybe the exception of The Wild Bunch, Junior Bonner, and perhaps a few more. <br /><br />It is riddled with weaknesses, John Drew Barrimore the most glaring. However it does have one truly memorable scene. Nothing like it. Its right after Kid Wichita kills the sheriff, and goes to Jack Elams place trying to goad him into a fight. Wonderful stuff. Right up with the best in any western.

one of the worst films i have seen to date. Pathetic action scene and really bad acting also do not help. The only good point is Gary busey's parts but this does not lift the film very much. it lives up to its B film ranking and passes the test with flying colours. A waste of my money although i found entertaining to begin with its gets annoying after a few watches. i do not recommend this film unless you watch it for free or its a gift. ( a gift you can ask for the receipt and send back for a complete refund).<br /><br />Really BAd.<br /><br />1/10.

Mr. VanHook took a good idea and kicked like a football. Unfortunately, it didn't make the goal. The historical subject of giants is a good one, but pour in the goon milk and you end up with a giant wheel of cheese. I say, take this reel wheel and roll it off a cliff. I couldn't even watch the entire film. That says a lot because I rarely walk away from any movie. I always like to give them a chance for last-minute redemption. It's impossible to redeem something this bad. Well, at least the acting was good....NOT! <br /><br />The only thing "falling" in this film is the rating. 1/10 and sinking into the negative numbers!

I thought I had seen this movie, twice in fact. Then I read all the other reviews, and they didn't quite match up. A man and three young students, two girls and a boy, go to this town to study alleged bigfoot sightings. I still feel pretty confident that this is the movie I saw, despite the discrepancies in the reviews. Therefore I'm putting my review back: If you like the occasional 'B' movie, as I do, then Return to Boggy Creek is the movie for you! Whether it's setting the sleep timer, and nodding off to your favorite movie-bomb, or just hanging out with friends. Boggy Creek, the mute button, and you've got a fun night of improv. Look out! Is the legend true? I think we just might find out, along with a not-so-stellar cast. Will there be any equipment malfunctions at particularly key moments in the film? Does our blonde, manly, young hero have any chest hair? Will the exceptionally high-tech Technicolor last the entire film? You'll have to watch to find out for yourself.

Brothers with psychokinetic powers (yes, really) duel not just for Debra Winger's affections but really over a secret from their childhood that left them at odds over their powers.<br /><br />There are surreal touches (the fire brigade that act like a singing Greek chorus), but there is also humour, wit and romance. The soundtrack is great also. And similar to the way American Werewolf in London used every great Wolf song they could get ~ but with fire and I don't think I'll ever forget Dennis Quaid (mmmmm Dennis Quaid), setting his own trailer a rockin' too 'She's a lady' ~ priceless ;)<br /><br />Best line missing from the quotes section btw ~ 'Once you've had a clown, you never go back!'<br /><br />I love this movie (I just ordered the DVD from the US) and if the comments written by the kind of people who'd be happier with Legally Blond 3 don't put you off ~ give it a try :)

I think James Cameron might be becoming my favorite director because this is my second review of his movies. Anyway, everyone remembers the RMS Titanic. It was big, fast, and "unsinkable"... until April 1912. It was all over the news and one of the biggest tragedies ever. Well James Cameron decided to make a movie out of it but star two fictional characters to be in the spotlight instead of the ship. Well, onto the main review but let me remind you that this is all opinion and zero fact and the only fact that will be present is an event from the film.<br /><br />So our two main characters are Jack (Leonardo DiCaprio) and Rose (Kate Winslet). They're not annoying too much but watch this and you'll find out why they could become annoying ( http://tinyurl.com/ojhoyn ). The main villain I guess is bad luck, fate, hand of God (no blasphemy intended), or just plain Caledon Hockley (Billy Zane). Combine all of the above and what do you get?! Oh yes! We get a love story on a sinking boat. The supporting characters are the following: My personal favorite, Mr. Andrews (Victor Garber)(idk he was so nice), Lovejoy(David Warner), Murdoch(Ewan Stewart), Lightoller (Jonathan Phillips), Captain Smith(Bernard Hill), Molly Brown(Kathy Bates), and many more. We also got the present day treasure hunter, Brock Lovett (Bill Paxton). They add something to the story, something good. The action in here is awesome, especially in the second half, the drama as also good. In the end you can have your eyes dropping rainstorms or silent tears. The story is simple and it works. A treasure hunter seeks the Heart of the Ocean and instead finds a drawing of a woman wearing the said diamond. She calls and tells her tale on the RMS Titanic. Two lovers separated by social class and ultimately, the fate of the ship. Everything about the story works and there are very few flaws. I give Titanic, an 86% awesome

Somewhere, on this site, someone wrote that to get the best version of the works of Jane Austen, one should simply read them. I agree with that. However, we love adaptations of great literature and the current writers' strike brings to mind that without good writers, it's hard for actors to bring their roles to life. The current version of Jane Austen's PERSUASION shows us what happens when you don't have a good foundation in a well-written adaptation. This version does not compare to the 1995 version with Amanda Root and Ciaran Hinds, which was well acted and kept the essence of the era and the constraints on the characters (with the exception of the bizarre parade & kissing in the street scene in Bath). The 2007 version shows a twitty Anne who seems angst-ridden. The other characters were not very developed which is a crime, considering how Austen could paint such wonderful characters with some carefully chosen understatements. The sequence of events that made sense in the novel were completely tossed about, and Mrs. Smith, Anne's bedridden and impoverished schoolmate is walking around in Bath - - twittering away, as many of the characters seemed to do. The strength of character and the intelligence of Captain Wentworth, which caused Anne to love him in the first place, didn't seem to be written into the Rupert Penry-Jones' Wentworth. Ciaran Hinds had more substance and was able to convey so much more with a look, than P-J was able to do with his poses. All in all, the 2007 version was a disappointment. It seemed to reduce the novel into a hand- wringing, costumed melodrama of debatable worth. If they wanted to bring our modern emotional extravagances into Austen's work, they should have done what they do with adaptations of Shakespeare: adapt it to the present. At least "Bride & Prejudice" was taken out of the historical & locational settings and was fun to watch, as was "Clueless". This wasn't PERSUASION, but they didn't know what else to call it.

SPOILERS THROUGH: <br /><br />I really am in the minority on this one but I liked this movie. It's not a classic but it's definitely involving and quite an adrenalin fueled ride. I definitely thought it was worth at least a 7 rating.<br /><br />Perhaps the reason I liked it is because I haven't seen the original.Something tells me that with a movie like this it's strongest fans will be the people who have not seen the original version and thus, have little to compare it to. This was not a masterpiece but I did get into it quite a lot and it actually made me want to see the original.<br /><br />There were a few things I liked about it. One was the casting of Kowalkski. Viggo Mortenson was superb and really brought a lot of charisma to the role. Since the bulk of the movie fell on his shoulders, he really needed to be excellent and he was. This was a great role for him.<br /><br />Another interesting thing about Vansishing Point was the fact that it's made for television. I had no idea this was the case when watching it. It sure seemed like a major motion picture and I would never have guessed this was not a big screen release.<br /><br />I also found the story to be very absorbing. I'm not one for action movies but I got sucked into this. Plus it was a lot more then an action movie in that there was drama, mysticism, a love story, quirky people every which way you turned. (I didn't even recognize Priestly.) And it was touching. This was not a great movie but it is watchable.<br /><br />And then there's the ending. It packs a strong punch and if one's been involved in the story up to that point, it's very difficult not to be transfixed at the very end. I am not sure how I feel about the ending. The implication was that Kowalkski survived and though I'm highly skeptical of HOW that would be possible, it is a movie and realism isn't an ingredient that's always in the mix when making a movie.<br /><br />So I'd have to say I found the end incredibly unrealistic but very touching in a manipulative kind of way, which I don't usually like but for some reason, is almost forgivable in this movie. Admittedly, a lot of things were just props for the plot(could the villains have been anymore stereotypical?) But the makers got a lot right even if they got many things wrong as well. However, having said that, I will admit I can understand why someone who's a major fan of the original would hate this version because, though I have not seen the original, I have seen many original movies I loved being remade with terrible results. (My big dislike is actually sequels.) But I can understand the low ratings if the original is of that high a quality.<br /><br />People have compared this to Smoky and the Bandit. How about a road version of "Legends Of The Fall" meets "Thelma and Louese" as well? I sure felt touches of both films(both of which I'm a fan of.) I do not think however, that this was a great film. It was better then average to me but far from great. But it was an absorbing, adrenalin fueled, touching movie with excellent casting of the main character. My vote is 7 of 10.

This movie is an utter waste of time, the plot is awful, the dialogue is awful.<br /><br />The acting is OK, but the actors have absolutely no plot or script to work with. The photography and some of the special effects are OK, too, but again there is nothing interesting in this movie to watch. There is no logical progression to the story, the story line is utter nonsense. It isn't even scary. For a movie to be scary, there has to be at least a small element of believability. This movie has no believability at all.<br /><br />There are only three characters in the movie. Each character is shallow and has no personality. <br /><br />Most of the special effects and make up work are both badly done, or at most mediocre.<br /><br />I hope you read this and do not waste time on this movie unless you are curious to see an entirely awful movie.

This is one of the finest films to come out of Hong Kong's 'New Wave' that began with Tsui Hark's "ZU: Warriors of Magic Mountain". Tsui set a tone for the New Wave's approach to the martial arts film that pretty much all the directors of the New Wave (Jackie Chan, Sammo Hung, Wong Jing, Ching Siu Tung, etc.) accepted from then on as a given; namely, the approach to such films thenceforth would need more than a touch of irony, if not outright comedy. "Burning Paradise" put a stop to all that, and with a vengeance.<br /><br />It's not that there isn't humor here; but it is a purely human humor, as with the aged Buddhist priest at the beginning who somehow manages a quick feel of the nubile young prostitute while hiding in a bundle of straw. But this is just as humans are, not even Buddhist priests can be saints all the time.<br /><br />When irony is at last introduced into the film, it is the nastiest possible, emanating from the 'abbot' of Red Lotus Temple, who is a study in pure nihilism such as has never been recorded on film before. He is the very incarnation of Milton's Satan from "Paradise Lost": "Better to rule in Hell than serve in heaven!" And if he can't get to Satan's hell soon enough, he'll turn the world around him into a living hell he can rule.<br /><br />That's the motif underscoring the brutal violence of much of the imagery here: It's not that the Abbot just wants to kill people; he wants them to despair, to feel utterly hopeless, to accept his nihilism as all-encompassing reality. Thus there's a definite sense pervading the Red Temple scenes that there just might not be any other reality outside of the Temple itself - it has become all there is to the universe, and the Abbot, claiming mastery of infinite power, is in charge.<br /><br />Of course, fortunately, the film doesn't end there. Though there are losses, the human will to be just ordinarily human at last prevails. (If you want to know how, see the film!) Yet there is no doubt that, in viewing this film, we visit hell. Hopefully, we do not witness our own afterlives; but we certainly feel chastened by the experience - and somehow better for it over all.

This movie is absolutely pointless, one of the good esamples how Malcom McDowall never got one decent role after Clockwork Orange. This one may be one of the worst though. No story, crappy special effects, shot in 4:3/or even worse cropped on DVD, just avoid it ....

The Sunshine Boys is one of my favorite feel good movies. I first saw it when it as the Christmas attraction at Radio City Music Hall when it first came out and loved it ever since. I ended up seeing it 6 times in the theaters, and if it was playing today I'd go out to see it again.<br /><br />Now a lot of the reviews here mentioned the wonderful performances of the leads. Matthau was brilliant, but had the misfortune of being nominated against Jack Nicholson's Oscar winning performance of Randall P. MacMurphy in "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's nest. Burns did win, though Richard Benjiman deserved at least to be nominated as well. Even the smallest roles were played to perfection, like Fritz Feld auditioning for the potato chips commercial. <br /><br />Which brings me to my reason for reviewing this film, the direction of the greatly underrated Herbert Ross. Ross who previously brought a two person play, "The Owl And The Pussycat" to the screen and made a full movie out of it, does it again. He opens the plays out without making them look like a photographic stage play. He fleashens out the story and the characters.<br /><br />Here we're 20 minutes into the film before we get to the scene that opens the play, where Ben Clark comes to see his uncle and tell him about the comedy special. Though there are dialogue from the play during the first twenty minutes, the sequence itself is totally new. A few years ago I did see at the broadway revival of the play with Jack Klugman and Tony Randall, which was wonderful. But I think that Ross and screenwriter, playwright Simon improved on it. It's just a wonderful film.

But the opposite, sorry bud, i completely understand how you can be dragged into a film because you relate to the subject ( and you have). This film is terrible, the main character would give any charlie brown subtitler a run for his money he just constantly mumbles which is always a laugh, most scenes just feel awkward with characters more often than not gazing across to another with a look of...its your line now, then i will react. Best British comedy? Please buddy, have a strong word with your bad bad self...at the end of the day ...the sun goes down...and this film is Awful. I mean well done to the people involved...they have made a film...and maybe motorbike enthusiasts may be into it but people that still live here on earth with an actual sense of humour will struggle with this more than smiling at the Christmas present they're nan bought them...was that overly harsh? i do apologise...

Today, I wrote this review in anger at Uwe Boll and Hollywood.<br /><br />Hollywood has produced movies based on one of the darkest days of our nation. 911 changed everything. It changed our perception of security. It changed our understanding of the evil of man and humanity. Most importantly and devastatingly , it changed our world.<br /><br />However, I can't not stress how utterly repulsed, disillusioned, and angry I am at the careless, blatant ignorance of Hollywood seeking to make a lucrative profit out of death and destruction. This film and those like it are bound to cause controversy amid word-of-mouth among moviegoers and critics alike; most surely to be echoed by the mainstream press. Hollywood has sunk to a new low. Even lower than the low-down bastards who perpetrated the most barbaric acts of savagery and unrelenting cruelty. Behind it all is Uwe Boll. I am very angry at this movie. How dare they disrespect the memories of families of those lost? How dare they mock the lives of the brave men and women who risked their lives to save those trapped in the doomed towers on that fateful day of infamy?!?!? How dare they try to satirize and at the same time capitalize on a national tragedy in the mist of a mourning and weary post-911 world?!?!?! How...dare...they? <br /><br />To those who have the gall to even think of seeing this morally appalling travesty, I say this with a heavy heart with all my strength: Remember. Think back to that day and ask yourself whether or not you are a sane and moral person. Think back to that day, ask yourself whether or not this film is a disgrace and dishonor to the lives lost on that day. Think back to that day of the outcry of families of loved ones. Think back to that day of the lives lost on those two planes. Think back to the further carnage it caused following the attacks.<br /><br />Ask yourself if you have a soul.<br /><br />Think. Remember. Respect the memories of the lives lost on 911 by not seeing this film at all.

DR. SEUSS' HOW THE GRINCH STOLE CHRISTMAS / (2000) ** (out of four)<br /><br />If you desire to see a holiday movie that will inspire your seasonal spirits and continue the traditional Dr. Seuss classic fable, don't see "Dr. Seuss' How the Grinch Stole Christmas." If you are old enough to read this review, then you are probably too old to get any kind of enjoyment out of this motion picture. It contains lots of colors, creative production design and imaginative set and costume construction, joyous load noises, and the characters are made up to look like the actual inhabitants of the fictional village Whoville. Unfortunately that is where the movie's positive elements end; the rest of the production is nothing but an excuse for Jim Carrey to cackle on screen while giving a devilish grin, all while prancing through the overly broad screenplay with nothing much to do.<br /><br />Many people recognize the story of how the grinch stole Christmas from Whoville, so I will not waste my time in writing a detailed synopsis for you to read. However, I will say that the movie's story is executed in three major acts; the development of the grinch and setting, the Whoville festival, and the Dr. Seuss vision of the mean one robbing the Who's from their Christmas. There are many familiar names within the credits here, but no familiar faces. Like in "Battlefield Earth," I just do not see why the producers would hire expensive actors just to have their identities shielded by unrecognizable makeup and costumes. Regardless, there is SNL's Molly Shannon as Betty Lou, the wife of Bill Irwin, the later playing Lou Lou, the father of little Cindy Lou, played by Taylor Momsen. Jeffrey Tambor is the Whoville mayor, Anthony Hopkins lends his bellowing voice for the film's narrator, and Christine Baranski is the Grinch's lone lost lover.<br /><br />The filmmakers attempt to bring originality to the story by adding unnecessary subplots and focusing too much on the little Cindy Lou. The screenplay by Jeffrey Price and Peter S. Seaman just feels like it goes everywhere across the movie landscape; there is little if any focus by director Ron Howard and the screenplay is predictable, too extensive, and contrived. The only character given any distinctions here is the Grinch himself, all of the other characters are puppets of the plot, shapeless and uninteresting. And the dialogue is overzealous and too corny to be anything but pathetic. Example-Grinch: Oh, the Who-manity!<br /><br />The movie's redeeming factors go out to the gifted production designer Michael Corenblith, the costume designer Rita Ryack, and the ample makeup department. "How the Grinch Stole Christmas" is a very good-looking production. The sets and the atmosphere created by the filmmakers are detailed and imaginative; it is like the audience is visiting a world as in a dream. The people of Whoville are plastered with makeup, to the point in which we cannot tell the actor reciting the humorless lines. Although dazzling, I really can't give credit to the performances, for they are over looked to due the expensive technical department taking their place.<br /><br />Jim Carrey is one actor who I can talk about. His performance is what nearly destroys the movie itself He is way too egotistic as the Grinch, too exaggerated and comical to allow the story to be anywhere near recognizable as the work of Seuss. Surprisingly, although there are a few funny moments due to a few slyly clever sequences, no laughs come from Jim Carry's zany silliness. It is almost like the movie was wrote specifically for Carry to overplay his part. This factor only leads the movie to a wild but brainless comedy, which is only a pale shadow of the original Christmas classic "How the Grinch Stole Christmas."<br /><br />After this movie, historians should check the coffin of the late author, Dr. Seuss may have rolled over in his grave.<br /><br />

One of the silliest movies of the 1940s, an unbearable haunted house comedy with music starring Kay Kyser. Kyer, orchestra leader and radio-star (and eternal college fraternity goof-off), was sort of the precursor to Spike Jones, hamming it up for his guests and backed up willingly by his merry troupe of musicians. He's hired to play a birthday party in a gloomy mansion, the kind where poison darts imported from Africa are framed and hung on the wall. The shindig is beset with a creepy judge, a scary professor, an ominous swami, lots of giggly females, and enough bad jokes to fill three Bob Hope pictures. The songs (by Jimmy McHugh and Johnny Mercer) are nothing to brag out, and neither is over-confident Kyser, yukking it up with elbow-in-the-ribs material that turns 1940 back ten years. * from ****

Larry Burrows has the distinct feeling he's missing out on something. Ever since he missed a crucial baseball shot at school that cost the championship, he's been convinced his life would have turned out better had he made that shot. Then one night his car breaks down again. Walking into the nearest bar to wait for the tow truck, Larry happens upon barman Mike, who unbeknown to Larry is about to change his life for ever.......<br /><br />The alternate life premise in cinema is hardly a new thing, stretching back to the likes of It's A Wonderful Life and showing no signs of abating with the quite recent Sandler vehicle that was Click. It's a genre that has produced very mixed results. Back in 1990 was this James Belushi led production, rarely mentioned when the said topic arises, it appears that it has largely been forgotten. Which is a shame since it oozes charm and is not short in the humour department. We know that we are being led to its ultimate message come the end, but it's a fun and enjoyable path to be led down. The film also serves notice to what a fine comedy actor James Belushi was. I mean if his style of smart quipping and larking exasperation isn't your thing,? then chances are you would avoid this film anyway. But for those engaged by the likes of Red Heat, K-9 and Taking Care of Business, well Mr. Destiny is right up your street. Along for the ride are Linda Hamilton, Michael Caine, Jon Lovitz, Hart Bochner, Jay O. Sanders, Rene Russo and Courteney Cox.<br /><br />Mr. Destiny, pure escapist fun with a kicker of a message at its heart. 7/10

It appears even the director doesn't like this film,but for me I think he's being a bit harsh on himself.<br /><br />Sure it's not perfect, but there are some atmospheric shots,and the story is good enough to keep you interested throughout.<br /><br />It's shot in what appears to be quite a pretty village which adds to the atmosphere as well.<br /><br />If you like horror films shot in England, give it a go.<br /><br />I have just seen a trailer for this directors latest film 'The Devil's Chair' which looks quite amazing.<br /><br />There aren't enough English horror films for me, so any that come along deserve our attention, and this one isn't as bad as you may think

Batman Mystery of the Batwoman, is, in a word, stale. <br /><br />The plot goes that a mysterious female vigilante ("Batwoman") is intruding on Batman's turf, and while Batman is trying to combat a Penguin/Bane/Rupert Thorne threesome, he's trying to figure out who the mysterious Batwoman is. <br /><br />There is nothing strikingly wrong about this, but there is nothing really special about it either, noting really made it stick out. <br /><br />Mask of the Phantasm had Bruce's long lost love re surface and mess with his head.<br /><br />Subzero was a major event in the life of Mr Freeze. <br /><br />Even the Batman Beyond movie spin off, Return of the Joker, dug deep with the characters involved. <br /><br />But Mystery of the Batwoman had some minor subplots, a lot of formula topped off by a mediocre setpiece on a cruise boat. Frankly, this thing is more Scooby Doo than Dark Knight, lacking the punch and bite that the Animated Series had in it's prime.

This movie is bad news and I'm really surprised at the level of big name talent who would ever agree to appear in such a piece of junk as this. I imagine there were a few strangled agents sprawled across Hollywood Blvd. as a result of this fiasco. What really gets you is that it could have been good. The directors star appeal and the subject matter was sufficient fodder to spark interest and ticket sales, but this is a flop. The multiple story lines all go from bad to silly by the pictures end, and you end up feeling like a mouse in a maze looking for a piece of cheese that turns out to be rotten. What Spike is able to achieve is revenge against any Italians who may have beat him up when he was a kid or insulted him, as the movie does quite a number on perpetuating outdated and probably offensive Italian stereotypes. As with any Spike Lee film there is some really thought provoking and magical camerawork. He does have the gift of grabbing your psyche and transporting you into his vision if only for a few memorable scenes. But the question remains...can you endure the other 2 hours of head scratching and clock watching as you wonder and wait for the ending that has to be there somewhere.

Believe me, I like horror movies. I like science fiction movies. I like independent films. And, I like low-budget, B movies. <br /><br />Sometimes, I even like bad acting, plodding scripts, wooden lines, improbably situations, and the like. However, I did not like Christmas on Mars. <br /><br />It just doesn't work on so many levels. For all the reasons listed previously, and many more. That includes the nonsensical, blatant use of images of female genitalia. And the many allusions to male genitalia, in a very Freudian way.<br /><br />I am convinced this is purely from ineptitude. As opposed to some attempt at doing something really different. I mean any movie that takes years to film, just cannot keep up the level of congruity and focus demanded by modern audiences.<br /><br />I had hoped that the whole movie was just a dream or hallucination by the main character. However, sadly, it was meant to have happened, as we saw things unfold on screen. <br /><br />About the only kindness that I can express, is that the image at the end was stupendous. If this had been used at the beginning, instead of the end, it could have allowed the film to take off where 2001 ended... <br /><br />To bad they didn't try that instead. I just don't understand what was so important about this film that it even had to be made. Was it the plot? Surely, it couldn't be. Was it the characters? I doubt it; I mean, I could live without knowing about Ed 15. Was it the dialog? Emphatically, no. The music? Perhaps, but more-likely the unvarnished ego of the principals needing to be stroked. <br /><br />Much better efforts have died on the cutting room floor.

This movie is a lot like the movie Hostel, except with *BAD* acting and not much suspense. The gore elements are there, but you don't really feel anything for the characters, making the violence not very effective. Some parts are just strange... like forcing a snake down someones throat. What's up with that? Is that supposed to be scary or gory? It's just kind of stupid. As for torture, there really isn't any (except for the guy getting blow-torched in the beginning, which they don't show anyway). The main bad guy keeps saying "make them die slowly", yet the butcher kills them all very fast. The deaths are all relatively quick. Yes, I did watch the "unrated" version. So, overall, not the worst gore movie I've seen, but not at all good either. You won't miss anything if you skip this one.

I was duped into seeing this movie after reading a positive review from another website and man was I p.o'd!!! it took me at least 15 minutes to pick it up off the shelf b/c I didn't want anyone to see me. then another 10 minutes to build the courage to take it to the counter and actually use real money to rent it. I thought that all my stress would pay off by the time I got home to and watching the movie b/c the review I read said the movie was a pleasant surprise; what a joke! if you can make it through the first hour of the movie then your in luck! b/c it's not until then the movie turn's into a horror. don't bother with this one folks, your better off watching "dankness falls"

Working from a script written in part by Nicholas Pileggi, best known for writing the book Wiseguy, which he adapted into the movie Goodfellas, and for writing the book and screenplay Casino, director Harold Becker shows how connected circles scratch each other's backs, even in the command of a comparatively honorable mayor like Pappas, who is regarded as a presidential prospect. As Cusack follows the paper trail of the dead mobster's probation report, his skepticism is agitated. How did this violent young man get probation rather than a jail sentence? We meet the other players in the plot, not the least of which is Danny Aiello, the political boss of Brooklyn, and Tony Franciosa, the Mafia boss whose nephew was shot dead. How and why these people are affiliated I leave to the movie to divulge, though there are never any misgivings that they are.<br /><br />The narrative is told generally through the eyes of the Cusack character, a visionary from Louisiana who admires his boss and hopes to learn from him. Much is made by everyone of bureaucratic knowledge passed down through the generations. Some of the dialogue is ungracefully erudite, but considering I just described the building blocks of the story as bureaucratic knowledge, one can't say it doesn't work. The shooting case builds against the seasoning of two other issues on the mayor's desk: a charge by Aiello for a subway stop and an off-ramp in Brooklyn to aid a new banking center, and the city's bid for the next Democratic convention. Individual idiosyncrasies are also explored, including Aiello's emotional bond with the music of Rogers and Hammerstein.<br /><br />Much also is made of menschkeit, a Yiddish expression, which, Pappas explains to his deputy, is about the bond of honor between two men, about what happens between the two hands in a handshake. This connection doesn't mean much to Bridget Fonda, the lawyer for the policeman's association who defends the dead cop's honor and fights for his widow's pension even as incriminating evidence appears. Little by little, the deputy mayor comes to grasp that menschkeit is such an influential notion that it outclasses he law.<br /><br />There are various scenes of hard impact, including one where the Brooklyn boss comes home for lunch in the middle of the day, his wife asserts her interest through the medium of the dish she has cooked, and then the Mafia boss drops in by surprise. There is also a compelling, and markedly conjectural, late scene between the mayor and his deputy.<br /><br />One scene handled with delicacy is comprised of the mayor's decision to speak at the funeral of the slain child, in a Harlem church. His advisers tell him he won't be wanted there. But he goes anyway, and cranks himself up for a spiel of unabashed hyperbole, Pacino and his character both.<br /><br />It gets an impressive reaction from the congregation, but the mayor knows, and his deputy knows, that it was artificial, and the way they scrupulously evade discussing it, in the limousine taking them away, is a subtle employment of composure and innuendo. This is a script that knows it has to supply Pacino with the reason why most of his fans go to see him, and immediately follows its quota with the reality that silence has much more inherent meaning than speech.<br /><br />Pacino and Cusack are convincing together throughout the movie, the older man unbreakable and aware, the younger one anxious to learn, but with ideals that don't sway. Pacino is innate with his down-to-earth capacity to marry common sense and inventive imagination, inspired flair and matter-of-fact realism. Cusack moves very freely in spite of his dark defensiveness.<br /><br />The Bridget Fonda subplot development is unnecessary, but it is a result of veteran screenwriter Paul Schrader's otherwise shrewdly perceptive belief in the worth of every character, and each is fleshed into earnest embodiments. Aiello, for instance, is a highlight because he evokes his character's joie de vivre and sensitivity to his environment.

Mad Magazine may have a lot of crazy people working for it...but obviously someone there had some common sense when the powers-that-be disowned this waste of celluloid...the editing is el crapo, the plot is incredibly thin and stupid...and the only reason it gets a two out of ten is that Stacy Nelkin takes off some of her clothes and we get a nice chest shot...I never thought I would feel sorry for Ralph Macchio making the decision to be in this thing, but I do...and I REALLY feel bad for Ron Leibman and Tom Poston, gifted actors who never should have shown up in this piece of...film...at least Mr. Leibman had the cajones to refuse to have his name put anywhere on the movie...and he comes out ahead...there are actually copies of this thing with Mad's beginning sequence still on it...if you can locate one, grab it cuz it is probably worth something...it's the only thing about this movie that's worth anything...and a note to the folks at IMDb.com...there is no way to spoil this movie for anyone...the makers spoiled it by themselves...

The Wooden Horse was one of the first "great" escape stories from World War II, telling the true story of Eric Williams and others in their escape from Stalag-Lufft III in October of 1943. I really like this film, but had to by it on VHS from Amazon in England and get it transferred from PAL format in the U.S. I read the book when I was in hight school, after having seen a portion of the film in the early 60's on T.V. The taunt drama of Peter and John trying to escape from Germany during the war is more realistic than the treck of the escapes portrayed in the Great Escape. This film is a lost treasure, that should be made more available to American audiences.

Tigerland follows the lives of a group of recently drafted men into the army who are called up to fight in Vietnam in 1971.<br /><br />At this point, America knows they are fighting a loosing battle, and the director takes us through a 16mm handheld documentary shot film of the lives of several recruits in the 'Tigerland' training camp in Louisiana.<br /><br />The film is more of a character study no real plot, but it focuses on a key character Roland Boz, who is a dissabordinate yet intelligent man, who only wants to escape the camp. We are taken through several characters in the unit waiting for the story to unfold.<br /><br />I'd have to say this is a great story about Vietnam and more importantly about the army in general.. Great acting, and very memorable. Also the directors use of film and style works so well, cause it looks a lot like the old film footage you always see regarding Vietnam. Its great to see how the film shows that all the infighting and problems were so significant to the problems of fighting this battle. The particular scene where Boz walks away from a training mission where an instructor is showing how to use a radio as a torture device just about sums up everything about war in a nutshell... and it's futility.<br /><br />Fantastic film. Not just about Nam but about who individuals have to decide what is morally right by being 'in the army'.<br /><br />Rating 9 out of 10.

This film is predictable; it is more predictable then a Vinnie Testaverdi pass, when he huts the ball for the Jets. One saw the ending coming up halfway through the film. The politics reminds me when I was back east. Many people know when the fix is in. I gave this four because of the acting, but the story is lame.

***SPOILERS*** Let's start with the "good" of this film--the serviceable acting of Cynthia Rothrock and Richard Norton. The rest of the acting is awful (this isn't aided by the atrocious script). The worst culprit is the villain, Buntao, the head of an Asian crime syndicate (played by Frans Tumbuan). I was laughing my head off as he was expressing his "fury" over having lost a bunch of money; horrid performance. Patrick Muldoon isn't much better, and his "it's a hostile takeover" line (that's the remainder of the title of this film) was delivered about as badly as one could do it. There are no other main characters, but no other actor/actress distinguished him/herself in this film. We next come to the plot. This should tell you all you need to know: In the original "Rage and Honor," Cynthia Rothrock, who plays Chris Fairchild, was a teacher in the inner city. Now, she's a C.I.A. agent (or was it some other governmental agency--sorry, but this film was so bad that I don't even remember). Hmmm...I can imagine what that C.I.A. application process was like. Interviewer: What past job experience do you have? Chris: I was a teacher. Interviewer: Okay; you're hired! I only give it a "2" because of some decent acting and a nice plot twist at the end (though we know that Tommy (Muldoon), the secret villain, will be caught).

What a waste of time and money! My hubby and I saw this movie - after seeing the previews and thinking it "might be funny". WRONG! This movie is about 90 minutes too long. The actors are trapped in a poorly written script and can't get out. The jokes are weak and tired, and not even seeing Wilson's naked behind can redeem any part of this film. The special effects.....aren't. I half expected to see the harness and wires holding up Uma in her flying scenes. And when the effects people apparently could not master the superhero's faster-than-a-speeding-bullet flying or fight scenes, they covered over everything with a swirling vortex of blurred screen - which hid the awful effects quite nicely. Wilson's sidekick was a lame excuse for a man and Wilson had no chemistry with either Uma or his office co-worker. The sex scenes weren't sexy and the funny scenes weren't funny. I guess I just expected too much from these actors. None of the characters were really sympathetic, so I ended up not caring a flying fig about any of them. The only memorable performances were the kids who played Bedlam and G-Girl as teenagers - at least THEY had some chemistry. Overall, a super stinko movie - I wouldn't even recommend it as a rental - it would still be a waste of money!

I first saw this movie in the theater when I was 8 years old and it still cracks me up. The Muppets are so cool and they approach show business in a refreshingly naive way. My favorite scene is when the rats start a whispering campaign on behalf of Kermit at a fancy restaurant. This is one smart and funny movie for kids and parents alike. Long live Kermit, Miss Piggy and the rest of the gang.

This was on at 2 or so In the morning one Saturday a few years ago, for various reasons I don't remember the entire story but what remains are the two standout performances from the central characters. Dom has had a unfortunate lot, manipulated & literally working a rubbish job, Eugene torn between personal aspirations and duty towards his sibling. Tom Hulce' Dom doesn't plead for sympathy - It comes naturally. Ray Liotta Is a universe away from Henry Hill, displaying a soft centre In what must feel a thankless position.<br /><br />In many ways this deals with the dilemma many young carer's face - the past or the future. As It turns out, with some work the two can happily co-exist. Thoughtfully handled & sensitively played Dominick & Eugene Is difficult not to warm to.

I would just like all of the fans of this documentary to know that Martin Torgoff is my uncle and I am so darn proud of him. This mini-series that in shown on VH1 is a great look at the culture of drugs in the past 30 years and my uncle worked very hard on it. The amount of time and effort that I have watched him put into this documentary and the book that started it all (Can't Find My Way Home) makes it that much better to watch him on TV. I know that he loves what he does and he does it well. His eloquence is shown in the interviews, which he did himself, and the amazing additions that he himself adds to the commentary. From the music to the videos and everything in between, this is a great documentary that really shows the experience of the drug culture through the eyes of someone who lived through it. I appreciate any comments on this from those who enjoyed it (or didn't) and would love to hear from fans! Three cheers for uncle Martin!!!

I enjoyed the story by itself, but the things that I learned about WWI Planes & boats, make this movie a must see. The close-ups on the plane & the torpedo boat & how they were used were completely new to me. I heartily recommend.

When "Good Times" premiered in 1974, it was one the first black family sitcoms. It centered on the poor Chicago-based Evans family and their struggles to make ends. Most of the early episodes focused on the parents, James and Florida Evans, and their struggle to provide for the family. John Amos and Esther Rolle were the best part of the show. They were terrific actors and had great chemistry as James and Florida Evans. They had three kids: J.J., Thelma, and Michael. J.J. was the skirt-chasing but well-meaning teenage son who made up for his lack of subtletly with artistic talent. Thelma was an attractive, bright girl who was constantly trading insults with J.J. Michael was a near child prodigy who was well-educated on social issues and was destined to become a lawyer.<br /><br />In 1976, the producers made a huge mistake by firing John Amos, literally killing off his character. This really changed the focus, and not for the good I might add. The shows began to focus more on J.J. and his buffoon-like behavior which angered black viewers as well as series star Esther Rolle, who left after the next season. Instead of a show that focused on key African-American issues that existed in society at the time, viewers got shows that were overloaded with skirt chasing and fat jokes.<br /><br />Once Esther Rolle left, the quality of the show suffered even more. Although it was still watchable, it was no longer the great ground-breaking show that it once was.<br /><br />Although Esther Rolle came back for the 1978 season, it became obvious that the show was on its last legs. All loose ends were tied up during that season and the show quietly faded off the air.<br /><br />First three season: A. Last three seasons: C+.

This movie is good for TV. I like it because I'm a HUGE fan of disaster films even though this is a family film. Accuracy on the film from the book is half-and-half They got the characters names right but in the book there was no storm chaser, the the car scene involving the Hatch family running away from the tornado wasn't in the book instead it involved Dan hatch and his friend riding with a police officer on their way to the police station for safety. and in the book Dan and his friend are both 12-years old. Thats all i can think of. Overall this was a good movie even though it could of have been a little more accurate to the book. Did you know the book was based on a true story of a series of tornadoes devastating a small Nebraska town in 1980?

Lily Mars, a smalltown girl living in Indiana, dreams of making it big on Broadway and her aspirations are given a lift when successful Broadway producer John Thornway returns to his hometown for a visit. Lily tries everything she can to get Thornway to notice her, but he just gets annoyed with her antics. When Thornway goes back to New York to stage his show, Lily follows (unknown to John of course) and Thornway eventually gives her a small role in his next show, only as a favor to her family, however Thornway starts to fall for this young girl and a romance blossoms, which makes the show's leading lady, Isabel Rekay, jealous. When Isabel gets fed up with the John-Lily romance causing friction with the show, she leaves, and John decides to make Lily the star. Isabel returns later, and Thornway is forced to tell Lily that she is back to her small bit role in the play, which also may jeopardize the romance. Very charming film, and a refreshing change to see Garland put the comedic touches into her role (her reading of Lady MacBeth, while supposed to be humorous, never threatened her singing career) I enjoyed Heflin's character (Thornway) more when he was annoyed with Lily rather than be the romantic. The film got to be somewhat predictable and the scenes weren't assembled that well together, but a very enjoyable film. Rating, 7.

seriously i loved this film..i had started to read the book and i loved it...the way everything was set up and everything had a purpose...i think this film did so well was because Louis Sachar wrote the screenplay..and of course Andrew Davis directed it...Shia Lebouf gives a great performance for his first film...the storyline is very cool and interesting...there's humor, heart and intensity...it is very similar to the book..i find this film to be not the least bit boring...i absolutely loved it...and i encourage anyone to read the book..all in all this film is very well put together and carefully crafted...two thumbs up for me in every single way

The effect achieved in this story about a psychiatrist who becomes involved with con artists is so mannered that I have to assume that that was the desired intent. The sets are artificial and at no time did I not feel that I was watching a movie. It seemed like the actors were just reading their lines, rather than responding to one another. While the film has elements of early film noir (except that it is in color) the approach is so exaggerated that I almost have to conclude that it is a parody of the genre.<br /><br />Given that the presentation had no appeal to me, I was at least expecting an engaging story. Usually I am pretty slow on the uptake when it comes to stories with plot twists, but you could see what was coming here within the first fifteen minutes. By the time of the, "Gee, I forgot the $80,000," moment, I thought to myself that this thing is truly ridiculous. For a psychiatrist with stated experience in gambling addictions to behave so stupidly is beyond belief. If at any stage she had behaved like a normal intelligent person, the whole story would have fallen apart.<br /><br />This wooden production left me cold.

I loved so much about this movie...the time taken to develop the characters, the attention to detail, the superb performances, the stunning lighting and cinematography, the wonderful soundtrack...<br /><br />It has a combined intensity and lightness of touch that won't work for anyone who wants the typical fast-paced action flick. If we lived in Elizabethan days, I'd say this movie's a bit like a Shakespearean tragedy. But since we don't, let's say it's more like a Drama-Suspense movie.<br /><br />The plot is simple, but the story is complex. The movie is intelligent in the way relationships and issues are explored. Much of the story is shown rather than told, which I find makes it more subtle and moving - and which also works well for a story based on a comic book (or graphic novel). At times I felt I was actually there in the 1930s, part of this story - there was such a realistic yet dream-like quality in the style of its telling.<br /><br />I don't often prefer movies to the books they were based upon, but in this case I do. (Though I did enjoy the book too.) I've bought the DVD, which is great because it has some wonderful deleted scenes and insightful commentary.<br /><br />(I also took my little cousin, who's a little younger than the boy in the movie, to see it after I saw it for the first time, because he has issues at home and I wanted to use this as a way of starting a discussion on father-son issues with him. He loved it - and the discussion.)

This is a CGI animated film based upon a French 2D animated series. The series ran briefly on Cartoon Network, but its run was so brief that its inclusion as one of the potential Oscar nominees for best animated film for this year left most people I know going "Huh?" This is the story of Lian-Chu, the kind heart muscle, and Gwizdo, the brains of the operation, who along with Hector their fire farting dragon,he's more like a dog. Travel the world offering up their services as dragon hunters but never getting paid. Into their lives comes Zoe, the fairy tale loving niece of a king who is going blind. It seems the world is being devoured by a huge monster and all of the knights the king has sent out have never returned or if the do return they come back as ashes. In desperation the king hires the dragon hunters to stop the world eater. Zoe of course tags along...<br /><br />What can I say other then why is this film hiding under a rock? This is a really good little film that is completely off the radar except as unlikely Oscar contender. Its a beautifully designed, fantastic looking film (The world it takes place has floating lands and crazy creatures) that constantly had me going "Wow" at it. The English Voice cast with Forrest Whitaker as Lian-Chu (one of the best vocal performances I've ever heard) and Rob Paulson as Gwizdo (think Steve Bucsemi) is first rate. Equally great is the script which doesn't talk down to its audience, using some real expressions not normally heard in animated films (not Disney nor Pixar). Its all really well done.<br /><br />Is it perfect? No, some of the bits go on too long, but at the same time its is damn entertaining.<br /><br />If you get the chance see this. Its one of the better animated films from 2008, and is going on my nice surprise list for 2009.

When converting a book to film, it is generally a good idea to keep at least some of the author's intended tone or conveyed concepts, rather than ignoring the author altogether. While it is clear that the director had access to and went on the advice of Elinore Stewart's children, it is key to note that the children believed their mother to be a complete liar in regards to the good, enriching, strengthening experiences of homesteading her land. The book details her life on her and her husband's adjoining homesteads in the vast Wyoming frontier; she chronicles daily adventures with her numerous friends and acquaintances, though they lived dozens of miles apart. The film, however, takes a standard stance for the time it was made, portraying this woman's experience as harsh, unforgiving, and nearly pointless. Perhaps the director was bringing some of his Vietnam War experiences with him to this movie (as some film aficionados have said), but it seems to be a lousy excuse for taking all the joy and beauty of the book and twisting it into a bleak, odious landscape devoid of friends or hope. Don't waste your time with this movie; read the book instead.

I didn't think the French could make a bad movie, but I was, clearly, very wrong. As has been said before, this film essentially uses its title character as a point of departure; its portrayal of her life and person have little or nothing to do with the real Artemisia Gentileschi. <br /><br />The script is awful -- pretentious, stilted, and vapid -- and its rewriting of the facts is unusually offensive even in a genre that all too often makes its living by distorting, rather than retelling, history. Along with some fairly decent set design, Valentina Cervi's physical charms are the primary asset of this movie, and it's obvious from the beginning that the filmmakers were aware of this too; they waste no time in contriving various "erotic" sequences which have far more to do with titillation than with plot or character development. Unfortunately, the appeal of seeing a pretty young girl in a state of feigned sexual arousal cannot, and does not, sustain this movie. The acting is unremarkable, and the score is all too generic despite an interesting chord or two. The cinematography is OK, and there are some pretty colors, but there are also some pretty ridiculous sequences using distorted-lens effects more appropriate for a 1960s freakout movie than a costume drama. In any event, the script leaves the camera dwelling all too often on Artemisia's body, and all too seldom on her paintings.<br /><br />All told, a near-complete failure. It's not intelligent or tasteful enough to be a serious film, and it's too slow and pretentious to work as soft-core pornography. So the French can fail, after all!

This was shown on the biography channel and was about as informative as a children's comic! I gave it 2 out of 10 for it's attention to detail because for the most part it had a 70s feel to it and the three ladies that played the original three angels looked like them so the make-up was good.<br /><br />This was supposed to be a biography on the biography channel but it was void of everything that is normally / usually seen in one of their biographies. No interviews with surviving cast members, crew members, production team members etc., or their friends, families, and any biographers of those people. In fact I know just as much now about the programme as I did before I watched this film that was based on the (supposedly) biographical book. As for actually learning something that no-one knew about the program and wasn't common knowledge well that never happened.

Well it looked good on paper,Nick Cage and Jerry Buckheimer collaborate again, this time on a mix of heist movie, Da Vinci Code,American History 101 and Indiana Jones. But oh dear, this is to Indiana Jones what Speed 2 is to Speed. A reasonable cast(including John Voight and Harvey Keitel) battles against a puerile script and loses badly. The film is little more than an extended advert for the Freemasons.However these Freemasons are not your usual shopkeepers who use funny handshakes and play golf, these Freemasons are the natural descendants of the Knights Templar (and nobody mention 'From Hell' or Jack the Ripper.)I don't think I've revealed any plot spoilers because there are none. There is virtually no suspense, no surprises and no climax- it just stops. National Treasure aims for Dan Brown but hits the same intellectual level as an episode of Scooby Doo sans the humour.

The psychology of this movie is really weird to try and figure out. Its often billed as an anti-RPG movie, but its really not that simple. Here are come apparent contradictions that make me wonder just what (if anything) they're trying to say about gaming.<br /><br />They laboriously introduce all the characters home lives by way of introduction, all of them having parents who are divorced, alcoholic, and totally out of touch with their lives except for the times they're harshly pressuring them to succeed. Tom Hanks is arguably the worst off, having just failed out of another school and still dealing with a brother who disappeared and may be dead. <br /><br />Its mentioned a couple of times that they play the game to work through problems in their real lives. And sure enough, at the end, when they go to see Robbie (Hanks), they're all happy and well-adjusted, embarking on their adult careers, problems solved, games put away (Daniel doesn't even want to design computer games any more), and even Robbie's mother, who's been constantly drunk and dissatisfied, is suddenly the Happy Homemaker, looking fresh and bright and arranging flowers. <br /><br />Sure, JJ suddenly (and quite cheerfully it seems) decides to commit suicide, but the reason seems to be entirely because he's a lonely boy genius who can't get a date, and not because his character dies, as in the famous Jack Chick tract (which happens afterward anyways, and it almost seems like he does it on purpose so he can end Daniels game and get everyone to come play his. In fact, the prospect of live-action role playing in the caverns seems to be the only thing that saves him from killing himself!) And in what may be the coolest tableau scene in the whole movie, Kate, looking very fetching in chain mail, looks right at the camera and says something like, "The scariest monsters are the ones in our own minds." <br /><br />The biggest fantasy element in this movie is the two muggers passing up the rich couple so they can rob the dirty, homeless-looking guy of his magic beans. The recurring theme (a "The Way We Were" for the 80s)might have been poignant at the end, but as a way to kick off a movie is downright depressing and seems out of place. And for one final mystery, our hero, wearing full Pardu regalia, has a psychotic break, becomes his character completely and embarks on his quest, so of course the first thing he does is change into 20-century street clothes. <br /><br />So maybe the movie's irrational, but I guess its dealing with an irrational topic. In those days a circle of kids with dice and pencils was regarded as tainted and possibly possessed, and you could go insane if they spoke their mumbo-jumbo at you. The anti-game paranoia is pretty much summed up in the first scene, where the reporter asks the cop whats going on, the cop says a kids lost in the tunnels and there's a chance Mazes and Monsters is somehow involved. The reporter admits to being vaguely familiar with the game (although he allows his own children to play it), then turns to the camera and reels off a polished spiel that blames the game for everything and admits no possibility of another explanation. In the end, its no masterpiece, but interesting as made-for-TV movies go.

I mean, I thought I heard this dialog in the movie, but it was so bad and out of place that I can't really believe it. I was laughing so hard at what must have been the worst writing and acting in human history, i was seriously worried that I might have a heart attack and die right there in the theater.<br /><br />So this is the scene I am talking about, the "hero" just watched his brother crash and his brothers car exploded right there just feet away from him (the hero). The "hero" was throwing the expected "fit" at seeing something so tragic and people were trying to hold him back from running into the burning car.<br /><br />In the middle of his fit and his uncontrollable rage/emotional break down he says "I am so sad" - he said that right? Am I crazy?

My wife and I both thought this film a watered-down, made-for-TV (BBC) version of Manhattan Murder Mystery...which is itself good, but not great. The story has little inter- character tension or chemistry, and not much of a plot. Woody Allen's character just sort of wanders around running off at the mouth, and Hugh Jackman and Scarlett Johannsson don't have a lot more to do. It's pretty disappointing, I must say. Ian McShane's role is just an expanded cameo appearance. <br /><br />The first thing that occurred to me was "I wonder how much the BBC had to pay Woody Allen to dislodge him from Manhatttan?" He must've needed the money, and they must have needed his appeal to expand their audience beyond the youth market drawn to the two stars. I'm giving this movie 4 stars instead of 3 because it is unbothersome background noise. If you ever want something to have on while you're knitting or sorting your stamp collection, this'll do the job. I wouldn't pay to rent it again.

Anna (Charlotte Burke) develops a strange fever that causes her to pass out and drift off into a world of her own creation. A bleak world she drew with a sad little boy as the inhabitant of an old dumpy house in the middle of a lonely field. Lacking in detail, much like any child drawing the house and it's inhabitant Marc (who can't walk because Anna didn't draw him any legs) are inhabitants of this purgatory/limbo world. Anna begins visiting the boy and the house more frequently trying to figure what's what and in the process tries to help save the boy, but her fever is making it harder for her to wake up each time and may not only kill her, but trap her and Marc there forever.<br /><br />Wow! Is a good word to sum up Bernard Rose's brilliantly haunting and poetic Paperhouse. A film that is so simple that it's damn near impossible to explain and impossible to forget. While you may find this puppy in your horror section it's anything but. It's more of a serious fantasy, expertly directed, and exceptionally well acted by it's cast, in particular Charlotte Burke and Elliot Speirs (Marc). And yet, it's not a children's movie either, but meant to make us remember those carefree days of old that are now just dark memories. Rose creates a rich tapestry of moody ambiance that creates a thrilling backdrop for the brilliant story and great actors to play with. Paperhouse stays away from trying to explain it's more dreamy qualities and leaves most things to the viewers imagination. There's much symbolism and ambiguity here to sink your teeth into. Paperhouse enjoys playing games with the viewers mind, engrossing you with it's very own sense of reasoning. As the story unfolded I was again and again impressed at just how powerful the film managed to be up to the finale which left me with a smile on my face and a tear in my eye.<br /><br />Bernard Rose's visuals are brilliant here. He's able to create an unnervingly bleak atmosphere that appears simple on the surface, but as a whole is much greater than the sum of it's parts. The acting is of young Charlotte Burke in this, her feature debut, is a truly impressing as well. Unfortunately she's not graced the screen since. A much deserved Burnout Central award only seems proper for that performance. Toward the end the movie lags a bit here and there, but I was easily able to overlook it. I wished they had took a darker turn creating a far more powerful finale that would have proved to be all the more unnerving and truly riveting in retrospect. The movie as is, is still one for the books and deserves to be seen by any serious film lover. It's a poetic ride told through the innocent eyes of a child, a powerful film in which much is left to be pondered and far more to be praised.

I mean really. This is not going to help the Australian film industry to make this kind of film with no values of any kind. Okay, if you're a stoner and have nothing better to do, then maybe. I think film-makers from here should try to show the rest of the world what great talented people we have, and this is not the vehicle for it. Come on now, this film is just tacky.

"A Mouse in the House" is a very classic cartoon by Tom & Jerry, faithful to their tradition but with jokes of its own. It is hysterical, hilarious, very entertaining and quite amusing. Artwork is of good quality either.<br /><br />This short isn't just about Tom trying to catch Jerry. Butch lives in the same house and he's trying to catch the mouse too, because «there's only going to be one cat in this house in the morning -- and that's the cat that catches the mouse».<br /><br />If you ask me, there are lots of funny gags in this cartoon. The funniest for me are, for example, when Mammy Two Shoes sees the two lazy cats sleeping and says sarcastically «I'm glad you're enjoying the siesta» and that she hopes they're satisfied because she ain't, making the two cats gasp. Another funny gag is when Tom disguises himself as Mammy Two Shoes and slams Butch with a frying pan and then Butch does the same trick to Tom. Of course that, even funnier than this, is when the real Mammy Two Shoes appears and both (dumb!) cats think they are seeing each other disguised as Mammy and then they both attack her on the "rear" - lol. Naturally that she gets mad and once she gets mad, she isn't someone to mess with. But even Jerry doesn't win this time, because he is expelled by her too.

You've got to admire director Todd Sheets for his dedication, drive and enthusiasm when it comes to movie-making: between 1985 and 2000, he made a whopping 34 films. Unfortunately, if his Zombie Bloodbath trilogy is anything to go by, they're probably all crap (and a quick look at their IMDb ratings seems to verify my hunch).<br /><br />Part 3 sees a group of obnoxious students finding detention a little more eventful than usual after they are attacked by hordes of the living dead, who have escaped from a top-secret army base located directly beneath their school. Working from a dreadful script by Brian Eklund (which relies heavily on liberal use of the f-bomb) director Sheets delivers yet another embarrassingly amateurish effort featuring some mind-numbingly awful performances from his talent-free cast, dreadful visual effects (some crap CGI and what looks like the front of a giant cardboard space-shuttle) and his trademark shoddy gore (handfuls of offal pulled from beneath his victims' clothing).<br /><br />Finally, after what seems like an eternity watching irritating characters running for their lives, and unconvincing undead people fondling animal innards, Zombie Armageddon finishes with a time-travel/paradox twist ending which forces viewers to re-watch several torturous minutes from the beginning of the film. Honestly... once was enough, Mr. Sheets—what have we done to deserve having to watch it again?

Excellent film showing the pathetic lives of two nutty old ladies. They couldn't live together, nor apart. Babbling constantly, sometimes at the same time, they hashed and re-hashed the past; going on and on about what coulda shoulda woulda. I found myself laughing at times, but mostly I was taken with how utterly sad and abandoned these two women were. See this one.

I do agree with everything Calamine has said! And I don't always agree with people, but what Calamine has said is very true, it is time for the girls to move on to better roles. I would like to see them succeed very much as they were a very inspirational pair growing up and I would like to see them grow as people, actresses and in their career as well as their personal life. So producers, please give the girls a chance to develop something that goes off the tangent a bit, move them into a new direction that recognises them individually and their talents in many facets. This movie that is being commented is not too bad, but as I have seen further on in their movies, their movies stay the same of typical plot and typography. When In Rome is good for audiences of younger generation but the adults who were kids when the twins were babies want to follow the twins in their successes and so hence I think we adults would like to see them make movies of different kinds, maybe some that are like the sixth sense, the hour, chocolat, that sort of movie - not saying to have just serious movies for them, humour ones too yes, but rather see them in different roles to what they have been playing in their more recent movies like this one and New York Minute. (Note: I am from Australia so excuse my weird spelling like reognise with the s instead of z)

While I don't agree with Bob's and Tammy's decision to give up baby Jesse, and it's something I'd never do, they were trying to do what was best for the baby. The way this movie is written, you see yourself becoming wrapped up in the story and asking yourself what you really believe, from all different aspects. Patty Duke? Antagonist? Almost unheard of, as far as I'm concerned. But during the movie, she really convinces you that she's psychotic, or at least, that there's something seriously wrong with her. Her character is the meaning of "emotionally disturbed." The movie seems to end quickly, leaving things somewhat unresolved. But other than that, this movie is really great. It really makes you think. It's not a movie to watch when you just want to kick back and relax and watch something cute that'll make you laugh. But it is a good movie to see when you want to challenge your own beliefs, see things from others' perspectives, and discover a little something about yourself. Caution: you may even grow while watching this movie! And it's all worth it, in the end.

This film was so disappointing. From the blurb that made me decide to see Phantom Love (why is it called this?)I had expected something arty and thoughtful with beautiful imagery. It did have some interesting images but these often seemed random and made no sense. In fact they seemed like they were inserted to fill in time. In the end the effect was listless.<br /><br />I believe the film was meant to be atmospheric, but it just wasn't. The lack of a coherent plot did not help matters. You might say it was mysterious, but I think it was just incoherent with no atmosphere.<br /><br />The main character seemed to be disturbed but the plot did not draw me in enough to care about her situation. Without looking at the cast list I would not have known that you see the main character as a child. The film has very little context for the time, place or character. I am not a prude but the sex scenes (there were several) seemed pointless and confused me further, I recognised Lulu but I was not sure if it was the same man, different men, a lover, her husband or was she a prostitute. It was only when I saw the credits that I discovered the hairy back was meant to belong to her lover. This film did manage to make what should have been shocking (dream sequences involving Lulu's mother) seem a bit boring.<br /><br />The nail filing actually made more sense, as it did give some indication of Lulu's emotional state. I will not fault the actors as I don't they had a lot to work on.<br /><br />I do not know if the lack of context or flow in the film was because of ineptitude or because it was pretentious but the end result was dull.<br /><br />I can't be bothered talking about it anymore.

this was the most pointless film i have ever seen as there was no plot and the actors did not seem to care. 90% of the film had absolutely no plot whatsoever, i laughed so much my ribs began to ache. the bit where the old men when to capture Robert Duvall was ludicrous. on a directorial level making a noir film does not involve lots of raining sequences and pointless closeups on the main character. this is a failed attempt to create a noir thriller and instead alienates the viewer with incoherent scenes. seeing as this was based on a 'manuscript' by john Grisham i do not count this as one of his book to film adaptations as it displays none of the suspense and engaging storyline as films such as 'the firm' or 'the rainmaker'.

This film definitely gets a thumbs up from me. It's witty jokes and even it's occasional stereotypical and derogatory views on Eastern European people had me in stitches throughout most of the film. It's plot is clever and 100% original and will have you guessing throughout the entire film. The one person I was most impressed with in this film was Hilary Duff. It's plain and simple to see that she has taken a leap of faith stepped outside of the 'chick-flick' genre she's used to. Her accent is excellent and her acting performance was surprisingly crisp and well-executed. It is the best performance I have ever seen from Hilary, and I have seen most of her films. Her character, Yonica Babyyeah is described as 'The Britney Spears of Eastern Europe' and this is seen in some of her mannerisms and the song, 'I want to blow you... ... ... up'. You also feel sorry for her, as her performance really grasps you, Yonica is a very complex and confused character. Joan Cusack had me laughing throughout the whole film with her sometimes slapstick humour, but also her facial expressions and so on. John Cusack's witty dialogue will probably make you chuckle throughout. I strongly recommend this film.

"Batman: The Mystery of the Batwoman" is about as entertaining as animated Batman movies get.<br /><br />While still true to the feeling of the comic books, the animation is done with a lighter spirit than in the animated series. Bruce Wayne looks much like he has before, but now he appears somewhat less imposing. The Dick Grayson Robin has been replaced by the less edgy, more youthful Tim Drake Robin.<br /><br />Kevin Conroy, as usual, invokes the voice of Batman better than most live action actors.<br /><br />Kelly Ripa did a much more decent voice-acting job than I was expecting.<br /><br />As in the live action Batman films, the movie lives or dies based on the quality of the villains. My all-time favorite, the Penguin, is here. His design is sleeker than it has appeared before, hearkening more to the Burgess Meredith portrayal of the '60's than the Danny DeVito portrayal of "Batman Returns." David Ogden Stiers is the perfect choice for the Penguin's voice. The Penguin is finally portrayed as a cunning sophisticate, just as he most commonly appears in the comics. Hector Elizondo's voice creates a Bane who's much more memorable than the forgettable version in "Batman & Robin." And finally, Batman has a descent mystery to solve, putting the "Detective" back in "Detective Comics" (that is what "DC" stands for, after all.) The revolution to the mystery is a delightfully sneaky twist.<br /><br />The score adds to the mysterious ambiance of the movie. It sounds like a mix between the score from "Poirot" and the score from "Mission: Impossible." All in all, it's more entertaining than your average cartoon.

A good film, and one I'll watch a number of times. Rich (the previous commenter)is right: there is much more going on here than is clear from the title boards, and I have to wonder how much has suffered in translation. Were there more in the original? Or was a native-language audience expected to lip-read more? Or -- since the screenplay was written by the author of the novel on which this was based -- was this a currently popular story with which the audience was already very familiar? In short, very worth a look, but it probably requires more work from contemporary viewers than the original 1913 audience had to put into it.<br /><br />The Alpha Video release touts the new organ score, but the music is not matched to the story progression in any way. Sure, it starts promisingly, but degenerates into a repetitive, Phillip-Glass-like monotony that reflects nothing of the action on the screen. After listening for a while, I turned off the sound and simply watched: much better!

Man, what the hell were the people who made this film on? And more importantly where can I get some? The opening scene sets the tone for the film: a woman writhing naked in a circle of fire, transforming into a werewolf. And this is no Rick Baker 'American werewolf' transformation, folks. We're talking some of the worst makeup ever captured on film here. I can just imagine some stoned Italian spreading glue on naked Annik Borel (who plays Daniela, the film's protagoness (is that a word?)), and asking her to roll in fur. That's how bad it is.<br /><br />From here on in it doesn't get much better. Minutes are wasted as the scenery chewing male actors waffle on about Daniela and her condition or something (I can't remember, but the dialogue is so bad if you don't laugh at it you'll cry).<br /><br />The funny thing is Daniela isn't even a werewolf, she's a psycho who goes mental whenever there is a man around (understandable, as she was raped as a child) so she thinks she becomes a werewolf like her ancestor (the opening scene). She can't help but tear out the throat of every man she meets, and she only wants to be loved! Things start looking up for Daniela as she meets and falls in love with a buff stuntman who doesn't trigger her 'episodes'. Check out the montage here, one of the cheesiest you'll ever see (laughing and hugging after diving headfirst through a window).<br /><br />Daniela's luck doesn't hold out as the film takes a brutal turn, she is suddenly viciously beaten and raped by a group of thugs who kill the stuntman. Reminiscent of "I spit on your grave", Daniela extracts bloody vengeance on her rapists.<br /><br />This is 100 minutes of my life I will never get back. But hey, that's the game you play when you're a film geek.

This is a gem, a real piece of Americana for all that this implies. If you are self programed to resist "life-afirming" stories, just stay away and leave the pleasure to the rest of us who still believe. And what makes the frosting on the cake truly delectable is that it is fact based on a real rags to riches story, no need to nit-pick what details were changed to make a compact story. Chris Cooper is one of the greatest living actors, and the complex, self-conflicted, bottom-line good at the core father he portrayed could only be pulled off successfully by someone with his skill and insight. The simple minded comments, refusing to accept a father who tries to lay down the law all the while sensing that he may possibly be off-track, expose the limitation of the commentator, not the writers or the acting. This is not for the cynical, or the simple minded.

From the writer of "What Ever Happened to Baby Jane?" and "Hush .. Hush, Sweet Charlotte," this tail-end of the sixties horror cycle has some eerie and campy fun. Micheál Macliammóir does a Victor Buono-type bit, but too often the movie totters dangerously close to a bad musical ... there's a particularly awful children's recital about halfway through. Debbie taps, tangos and tricks up a lá Harlow, while Winters' religious fanatic has a lesbian edge to her. Agnes Moorehead checks in as an evangelist. Weaver has nothing to do - and even has to pay a gigolo to dance with Debbie.

I haven't seen the original, but just wanted to drop a quick note to anyone who happens to scroll down this far: Wicker Man is the worst movie I've seen this year. Maybe even in two years. I wish I could ask the theater for my money back or turn back time to warn myself not to see it.<br /><br />I'll give it two positive nods: The sarcasm of Cage's character at least got some laughs from me and the scenery of the island was beautiful. Sorry, that's it. Here come the jeers. The movie's plot is only propelled forward because other characters won't give Cage any straight answers--and he puts up with this!!! How this could go on for over an hour of my time(much less days in the movie) is beyond me. <br /><br />Not to mention that the plot is full of holes. You leave the theater with enough unanswered questions to fill a library. How anyone could read this script and think, "Yes, people should pay $11 to see this shady outline of what a film should look like" is beyond me.<br /><br />Do not go see this flick. Or even rent it on DVD.

I was going to give it an 8, but since you people made 6.5 out of a lot better votes, I had to up my contribution. The river Styx was pure genius. Sure, Woody was his perennial stuff, but at least his role was appropriate. The first half hour was really hilarious, and then the rest of the movie was easy to watch. The dialog was clever enough, and Woody's card tricks at the parties, along with the reaction from the upper crust, were fun to watch. This was much better than the newspaper critics made it sound out to be. And a plus, a little Sorcerer's Apprentice to go along with it. And of course, did you notice that Johansen is getting a bit frumpy? Charles Dance is always entertaining, as was Hugh Jackman.

This movie is now appearing on digital TV at least once a month, I've watched it a dozen or more times, and it never ceases to delight me. If it was on tomorrow I'd watch it again. Such is the artistry that Peter Ustinov and Maggie Smith, two great magicians of the acting profession can create, helped in no small way by the superb supporting trio of Karl Malden, Bob Newhart and Robert Morley. Not forgetting others in minor roles.<br /><br />It is a simple tale, simply told, of an ex-con, a lovable embezzler, battling and succeeding with the then "new age technology" i.e computers, and finding affection in the process. Even if it is a tad (tongue in cheek) implausible, even unbelievable, the characters are not. There is no violence, no sex, no bad language, and best of all no awful method acting which is so prevalent today. A real lesson to modern movie-makers on how to make a great show from, and with, virtually nothing...except outstanding talent.

As I was watching this film on video last night, I kept getting these tingles that told me this one will endure. I've a feeling I'll be watching this again and again for years to come.<br /><br />It's got all the timeless qualities you could ask for in a story/film. And even though some cultural references are obscure for me, a Western viewer, at the core this is a universal tale.

I first saw this film in 1980 in the midday movie spot. After many subsequent viewings (and purchase of the video) it still makes me laugh out loud.<br /><br />Yes, it's a relic of another age - a domestic comedy set in affluent middle class America - but well executed is well executed. But it's also a document of its age - a celebration of post-war optimism, the baby boom and the nascent consumer age. This film is no "guilty" pleasure.<br /><br />Three wonderful sophisticated leads actors - urbane Melvyn Douglas; bemused Cary Grant; daffily determined Myrna Loy - complement each other and a memorable team of characters.<br /><br />My favourite scenes - "It means we gotta blast" and "Miss Stellwaggen" and "This little piggy".<br /><br />Love it.

David Lynch's crude and crudely drawn take on South Park presents us with a nightmare of disturbing clichés about suburban middle class families. The father is a hideous monster with three teeth and a disproportionately large circular mouth-hole from which are uttered the most horrendous guttural noises, the son and mother are permanently horrified, incoherent creatures for whom terror is a way of life. A number of equally absurd characters are introduced throughout the series.<br /><br />Lynch is not famous for his comedies (i.e. On the Air, aspects of Wild at Heart), and I am not particularly fond of comedies in general. However, there were a couple of scenes in Dumbland which made me laugh out loud. There are some clever bits of animated cinematography - where Lynch conveys wide ranges of reaction in his characters through a syntactical arrangement of shots as opposed to facial expressions (which never really vary in Dumbland).<br /><br />I believe Lynch was really trying to give his audience a straight-forward, if disturbing, animated comedy here. Interestingly, he chose to follow in the footsteps of the recent wave of ultra-low-brow humor (i.e. most Will Farrell films) while adding elements of vicious social critique and classic cartoon violence and gross-out humor. While the blend doesn't really work very well here, it is nothing if not Lynchian.<br /><br />Worth seeing by Lynch fans.

I was really, really disappointed with this movie. it started really well, and built up some great atmosphere and suspense, but when it finally got round to revealing the "monster"...it turned out to be just some psycho with skin problems......again. Whoop-de-do. Yet another nutjob movie...like we don't already have enough of them.<br /><br />To be fair, the "creep" is genuinely unsettling to look at, and the way he moves and the strange sounds he makes are pretty creepy, but I'm sick of renting film like this only to discover that the monster is human, albeit a twisted, demented, freakish one. When I saw all the tell-tale rats early on I was hoping for some kind of freaky rat-monster hybrid thing...it was such a let down when the Creep was revealed.<br /><br />On top of this, some of the stuff in this movie makes no sense. (Spoiler) <br /><br />Why the hell does the Creep kill the security Guard? Whats the point, apart from sticking a great honking sign up that says "HI I'm A PSYCHO AND I LIVE DOWN HERE!"? Its stupid, and only seems to happen to prevent Franka Potente's character from getting help.<br /><br />what the hells he been eating down there? I got the impression he was effectively walled in, and only the unexpected opening into that tunnel section let him loose...so has he been munching rats all that time, and if so why do they hang around him so much? Why is he so damn hard to kill? He's thin, malnourished and not exactly at peak performance...but seems to keep going despite injuries that are equivalent to those that .cripple the non-psycho characters in the film.<br /><br />The DVD commentary says we are intended to empathise with Creep, but I just find him loathsome. Its an effective enough movie, but it wasted so many opportunities that it makes me sick.

As others have mentioned, all the women that go nude in this film are mostly absolutely gorgeous. The plot very ably shows the hypocrisy of the female libido. When men are around they want to be pursued, but when no "men" are around, they become the pursuers of a 14 year old boy. And the boy becomes a man really fast (we should all be so lucky at this age!). He then gets up the courage to pursue his true love.

Born Again is a sub-standard episode from season one. It deals with the subject of reincarnation and just doesn't fly. I've never been big on reincarnation and that could be part of my apathy toward this episode. It does reference the Tooms case which is some nice continuation from the previous episode. But the positives end there. Which is unfortunate because that takes place at the beginning of the episode. I think it's ludicrous that a dead guy would chose to reincarnate in the body of a completely unrelated girl. And he waits until the girl turns eight to start exacting revenge. There's even a serious lack of witty Mulder & Scully dialogue to keep the episode afloat. If you're into reincarnation, maybe this episode is up your alley. If you're not, then at least you can learn what bradycardia is.

In order to hold the public's attention for three hours, we were treated not so much to a family's romp through four generations and 120 years of Hungarian history, as to sexual liaisons with a sister, a sister-in-law and other adulteries. Oh yes, there was also a totally gratuitous rape. Having said all this, the first story of the relationship among the children of the patriarch was fresh and sensual - thanks to Jennifer Ehle.

This is an excellent, heartbreaking movie. It is by far the best I've seen that depicts the current reality in Latin America...kidnappings, corruption, ruthless and greedy police officials and heartless mayhem towards innocent victims. Denzel Washinton gives the most moving performance in his career, in my opinion. Dakota Fanning is an amazing young actress. The relationship between Washington and Fanning is wonderfully written and portrayed, I believed every minute. The cast is brilliant, Christopher Walken, Mickey Rourke are great as always. Walken lights up the screen for me like no other actor. I would have loved to see more of both of them. The authentic locations are remarkable. The camera work is interesting and different. There are many famous Latin actors in the cast, making it all the more interesting for people familiar with Latin American cinema. I highly recommend this movie.

...because this was simply awful. 101 Dalamatians was funny even if formulaic, but this is nothing more than puerile drivel. The same plot except with the story excised from it; the world's most intelligent and horribly annoying macaw; Tim McInnerny proving that he really can't do comedy (everone remembers Percy in Blackadder but that was his high spot - it's all been downhill since then); direction so poor that if a group of college students had made this you'd throw it in the bin and tell them to do it again - properly this time. Ieuan Grufford better go back to Hornblower sharpish, whilst Glenn Close and Gerard Diepardieu ought to go into hiding for several years.<br /><br />Perhaps I could be too harsh; after all I didn't manage to sit through the whole film. It gets 1/10; only because I can't give it 0.

I loved October Sky. The thing I loved most had to be the music. It worked two ways: in the first hour of the film, it gives the viewer a time-frame. This is done by playing songs from the late Fifties. In the second hour, an instrumental score takes over. The music now fits the mood of the film perfectly.<br /><br />I did not only enjoy the music, I also quite enjoyed the cast. Jake Gyllenhaal as Homer Hickam was especially a surprise for me. He gave off a first-class performance, as did Chris Owen (Quentin) and Chris Cooper (John Hickam).<br /><br />I've seen this movie about escaping the life already laid out for you twice now, and both times I thoroughly enjoyed myself.

Probably Jackie Chan's best film in the 1980s, and the one that put him on the map. The scale of this self-directed police drama is evident from the opening and closing scenes, during which a squatters' village and shopping mall are demolished. There are, clearly, differences between the original Chinese and dubbed English versions, with many of the jokes failing to make their way into the latter. The latter is also hampered by stars who sound nothing like their Chinese originals. In fact, the only thing the dubbing has corrected is the court trial—at the time, trials in colonial Hong Kong were conducted in English, while the original has this scene in Cantonese!<br /><br />Nonetheless, Chan's fighting style and the martial arts choreography inject humour where possible, so non-Cantonese audiences don't miss much. It's not, after all, the dialogue that makes a Chan flick, but the action and the painful out-takes. The story is easy to follow: Chan plays an incorruptible Hong Kong detective pursuing a gangland godfather (Cho Yeun), and assigned to protect a star witness (Brigitte Lin). The action is superb from beginning to end, and there's not much time to breathe in between. It'll never get you thinking, but what an entertaining, and well strung-together, film. Arguably, this is one of the best martial arts films out there.

I would of enjoyed this film but Van Damme just does the same old same old rubbish time after time. Poo knickers fight scenes as per usually. The only thing this loser left out was the Russians normally end up being killed in the end. This film is utter doggy do do of the highest nature, please please please Van Damme get some acting lessons, you need them. Anyone who likes Van Damme has issues, It seems sad that the only way Van Damme ever gets any acting work is when he co writes the film, co produces the film and does the screen play for the film. AVOID VAN DAMME AND HIS SLICKED BACK NASTY WIG. I give this film a two out of ten, because the one with the the sandman was better. To add insult to injury I wasted a quid on this manure

I got this movie in the $5 bin at walmart. I would not recommend watching this move. I might give it to one of my friends if I am angry at them and want them to suffer for 2 hours.<br /><br />I looked at the cover and skimmed through the summary and thought it was a war movie. I wish I would have known how boring this movie was going to be before turning it on. It was my mistake to think something was going to happen in this movie. It's just about a group of people going from one boot camp to another. The drill sargents treat the soldiers very badly and the main character tries to help people get out of fighting in Vietnam.<br /><br />Okay, here is my rant about this movie: To me, this movie is slow and hard to watch. It was just one of those movies that you put in and are stuck watching because you want to turn it off but your hanging on to a string of hope that it might pick up towards the end. It doesn't. After the movie was over I through it behind my T.V. because I was angry that I wasted almost 2 hours of my life watching it, and another 10 minutes writing this review to warn people about it.

I am watching the series back to back as fast as possible. I am attempting to watch all things Star Trek. This is month 3 and I am now on Season 3 of TNG and I have already gone thru DS9 in its entirety. Star Trek is the greatest television phenomenon ever achieved.<br /><br />"Shades of Grey" is the first recap episode in the TNG series. Having just watched the shows, these clips were fresh in my mind, but I noticed how a couple of them were re-shot because the film looked better. Season 1 always seemed real dark and ugly to me - and the actors looked silly, like they didn't fit in their own skins.<br /><br />The show is essentially just made of up a greatest hits of the happiest and saddest moments in Riker's life on the Enterprise up until this point. The Data and Riker scene in the holo-deck is a classic moment of new friendship. My other favorite is when the 2nd officer on the Klingon ship challenges Riker's authority as first officer and Riker beat the living CRAP out of that Klingon. Then the admiral kicks his a$$ but good. This entire episode is a heck of a reminder that a LOT of crazy, great things have happened already in a mere 2 seasons with 5 more to go and a handful of movies! At this point in the series they are really starting to develop the emotions that tie Riker to Deanna Troi as Imzadi. Up until this point they have mentioned the fact, but they have yet to exploit it. Let the record show that the ST Wiki - Memory Alpha claims that Imzadi means "first" and denotes that she has had intimate relations with Riker and also remains deeply close on an emotional one. This episode further proves there will be a tense romantic interest in each other for a long time to come.<br /><br />Here is the article: http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/Imzadi By this point in the series, production value is up to speed and Star Trek TNG is settling into the sci-fi behemoth it was destined to become. Watching this again as an adult I see now what GREAT ACTORS the Star Trek Universe provides. They really need to make a new ST show set after all the current shows. A DS9 movie would have been nice too.

Despite being released on DVD by Blue Underground some five years ago, I have never come across this Italian "sword and sorcery" item on late-night Italian TV and, now that I have seen it for myself, I know exactly why. Not because of its director's typical predilection for extreme gore (of which there is some examples to be sure) or the fact that the handful of women in it parade topless all the time (it is set in the Dark Ages after all)…it is, quite simply, very poor stuff indeed. In fact, I would go so far as to say that it may very well be the worst of its kind that I have yet seen and, believe me, I have seen plenty (especially in the last few years i.e. following my excursion to the 2004 Venice Film Festival)! Reading about how the film's failure at the time of initial release is believed to have led to its director's subsequent (and regrettable) career nosedive into mindless low-budget gore, I can see their point: I may prefer Fulci's earlier "giallo" period (1968-77) to his more popular stuff horror (1979-82) myself but, even on the latter, his commitment was arguably unquestionable. On the other hand, CONQUEST seems not to have inspired Fulci in the least – seeing how he decided to drape the proceedings with an annoyingly perpetual mist, sprinkle it with incongruent characters (cannibals vs. werewolves, anyone?), irrelevant gore (we are treated to a gratuitous, nasty cannibal dinner just before witnessing the flesh-eating revelers having their brains literally beaten out by their hairy antagonists!) and even some highly unappetizing intimacy between the masked, brain-slurping villainess (don't ask) and her slimy reptilian pet!! For what it is worth, we have two heroes for the price of one here: a young magic bow-carrying boy on some manhood-affirming odyssey (Andrea Occhipinti) and his rambling muscle-bound companion (Jorge Rivero i.e. Frenchy from Howard Hawks' RIO LOBO [1970]!) who, despite being called Mace (short for Maciste, perhaps?), seems to be there simply to drop in on his cavewoman from time to time and get his younger protégé out of trouble (particularly during an exceedingly unpleasant attack of the 'boils'). Unfortunately, even the usual saving grace of such lowbrow material comes up short here as ex-Goblin Claudio Simonetti's electronic score seems awfully inappropriate at times. Fulci even contrives to give the film a laughably hurried coda with the surviving beefy hero going aimlessly out into the wilderness (after defeating one and all with the aid of the all-important magic bow…so much for his own supposed physical strength!) onto his next – and thankfully unfilmed – adventure!

As a forty-something urban explorer/photography and longtime fan of the original Kolchak: Night Stalker series since my early childhood, one aspect that hasn't really been mentioned is the amount of urban exploration Carl's character undertook during the series. He always managed to get himself in to one great abandonment, sewer or tunnel after another. Armed with only his trusty penlight (okay, so he had some flares in the primal ape episode tunnel) and his camera, he never carried any other gear to either protect himself or make the exploration easier.<br /><br />Like many here, I recently purchased the DVD box set of the two pilot movies and subsequent TV episodes, and have been slowly revisiting all the shows. And although I remember watching them back in the early 70s when they first aired, its been over 30 years passed...so many of them seem new all over again. Campy, dated and cheesy - but charming and highly entertaining. They just don't make stuff like this these days. Now its all regurgitated spin-offs with predictable characters and plots.<br /><br />Thankfully, my 16-yr-old daughter has been sitting down to watch the episodes with me and has developed an appreciation for them (she enjoys the genre). It gives me hope and faith the series will carry on to new generations of fans for years to come.

This is by far one of the better made movies and didn't leave me disappointed at all. The sound track along with finely shot hand-held camera work was exquisite . The are always chances a movie won't hold ones beliefs as well as another, but I felt that rhythm of this picture and the timing was excellent. Dakota Fanning is rapidly becoming a staple in movie that require a child with an old soul personality and she has never disappointed me with her talent. As for Mr. Washington and of course Christopher Walken they both exceed the challenge of showing the darkest sides of humanity trying to move to the light.

I can't believe they got the actors and actresses of that caliber to do this movie. That's all I've got to say - the movie speaks for itself!!

Beyond dirt cheap, this shot-on-video exercise in ineptitude was difficult to get through. It's got the typical gore that you'd expect in a zombie movie, but none of the required atmosphere to make it worth while.<br /><br />What's strange is that this is an amateur German video, and the version I saw is English-dubbed! The dubbers seem to be American fans (penpals of the Germans?!) who can't decide whether they want to play it straight or turn it into a comedy. One character (a white German, of course) is dubbed by a black guy apparently, who speaks with thick ebonics! 'Kno wahm sayin', Comrad?

THE MATADOR (2005) *** _ Pierce Brosnan, Greg Kinnear, Hope Davis, Philip Baker Hall, Dylan Baker. Brosnan gives one of his best non-Bondian roles as a middle-aged assassin facing a mid-life crisis while on assignment in Mexico where he befriends a square yet likable American businessman (Kinnear at his most affable) and discovers there is more to life than death. Newbie filmmaker Richard Shepard makes a solid big screen debut with a pointedly wicked black comedy with a sharp eye for visual detail and nuanced dialogue and character development that makes him a talent to watch in this breath-of-fresh-air into the 'buddy comedy' formula skewering what is anticipated of his leads and allowing Brosnan to get his ya-yas out with devilish glee. A sleeper gem indie hit.